Bindal Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, CHENNAI

ITA 2429/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8118 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N VIJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Tangible material
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI , , ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2429/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S.BINDAL MANUFACTURING CO. (P) LTD., 12/2, GROUND FLOOR, VENKATACHALAM LANE, RATTAN BAZAR, CHENNAI-600 003. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CORPORATE RANGE-1, CHENNAI-34. [PAN: AAECB 2626 A ] ( ) /APPELLANT) ( *+) /RESPONDENT) ) , / APPELLANT BY : MR.N.VIJAY KUMAR, CA *+) , /RESPONDENT BY : MR.AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT , /DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2018 , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.12.2018 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-1, CHENNAI, DATED 29.06.2018 FOR THE AY 2014-15. 2. THE APPELLANT RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO THE EXTENT PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT AND AT ANY RATE IS OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY. 2. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. ITA NO.2429/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 3. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL EXPARTE FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE WHEN THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING. 4. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE DERIVED NO BENEFIT BY NOT APPE ARING BEFORE HER FOR THE HEARING AND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENT OF THE APPELLANT. 5. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHEN THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING BEFORE HER. 6. FOR THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 7. FOR THAT THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS NOT BA SED ON ANY FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL. 8. FOR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT COMPL YING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 9. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF INTEREST PAID OF RS.1,20,000/- MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AS BOGUS EXPENSES. 10. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE AND WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDEN CES. PRAYER FOR THESE GROUNDS AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY B E ADDUCED BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT IS PRAYED THAT THIS HONB LE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO (I) QUASH THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT OR (II) ALLOW THE INTEREST PAID ON LOAN OR (III) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE TRIBUNA L MAY DEEM FIT. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPE LLANT IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN INDUSTRIAL SE LF ADHESIVE PALATES OF PLASTIC, PAPER & FLEX. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E AY 2014-15 WAS FILED ON 26.09.2014 DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.8,65,630/-. THERE IS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME. HOWE VER, SUBSEQUENTLY BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATIO N WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVED BOGUS ACCOMM ODATION ENTRIES FROM THE CONCERNS MANAGED, CONTROLLED AND OPERATED BY ONE MR.VIPUL VIDUR BHATT, MUMBAI ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.148 ON 02.1 1.2016. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE APPELLANT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 09.10.2017 SAME AS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AGAINST THE SAID RETURN O F INCOME, THE ITA NO.2429/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CORPORATE RANGE-1, CHENNAI, [HEREINAFTER CAL LED AS ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO)] VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.20 17 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT A TOTAL IN COME OF RS.8,65,630/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION ON THE LOANS FROM M/S.SHYAM ALCOHOL & CHEMICALS LT D., SAID TO BE BOGUS TRANSACTION. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AFTER GRANTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. B EING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT-COMPANY COULD NOT CAUSE APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASONS WHICH ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE SET-ASIDE TO THE LD.C IT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR HAS NO SERI OUS OBJECTION FOR REMAND OF THE MATTER TO THE LD.CIT(A). IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.2429/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 26 TH DECEMBER, 2018 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: 26 TH DECEMBER, 2018. TLN , *45 65 /COPY TO: 1. ) /APPELLANT 4. 7 /CIT 2. *+) /RESPONDENT 5. 5 * /DR 3. 7 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF